Why Univironmental Determinism is "One-sided"

Your philosophy seems too one-sided to me. Why don't you have a more balanced viewpoint?

To obtain public funds, philosophy departments must spend valuable time presenting all sides of each issue. As a private entity, the Progressive Science Institute is not required to do that (yet). In my opinion, strictly scientific philosophy must espouse determinism (the assumption that all effects have material causes) and avoid indeterminism (the assumption that some effects may not have material causes). If you find that I have overtly included elements of indeterminism or have "balanced my scale with the religious," then I will have failed in presenting scientific philosophy. As mentioned many times before, there is a constant struggle between science and religion. Because religion is still overwhelmingly powerful, most philosophy attempts some kind of compromise or "peace process" that mixes elements to satisfy the prejudices of both. However, as a scientist, my goal is truth, not eternal life. From the scientific perspective the only thing that can be eternal is the infinite universe itself even though each of its separate parts has a beginning and an end. And, as I showed in TSW, there are ways to have a truly balanced viewpoint within the confines of determinism.

No comments: